Talk:Twilight (n)
TWILIGHT - SUMRAK "POLUMRAK" literally means "half-dark" - although most Slavic-English dictionaries will also translate this word as "HALF-LIGHT" ...but what does "SUMRAK" mean? "Twilight"' '''is different from' "dusk". Indeed, '''"DUSK" is defined in English as'' "the dark part of twilight". Steevenusx 07:18, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Why not ''sumrak? Moraczewski 15:08, May 10, 2010 (UTC) What does "su" mean in relationship to "mrak = dark"? Steevenusx 17:03, May 10, 2010 (UTC) I don't know, but this is what most natural languages use. Polumrak in Russian is used in meaning half-darkness - e.g. in a room. Moraczewski 17:47, May 10, 2010 (UTC) So, why not sumrak? Moraczewski 04:21, May 12, 2010 (UTC) ---- OK, so what do we use for English word "DUSK"? --Steevenusx 18:37, May 12, 2010 (UTC) It seems Russian has no special word for dusk. In dictionaries, dusk is translated with both sumrak ''and ''polumrak. Moraczewski 03:47, May 13, 2010 (UTC) ---- Hmmm...that is sad. And it is one of the things that I find very interesting about different languages - how different speakers perceive the world differently. In English literature and poetry, "twilight" has a much more prominent place than "dusk". "Dusk" is boring, it is a dying, a death of light. While "twilight" is defined in detail as: "the soft, diffused light from the sky when the sun is below the horizon, either from daybreak to sunrise or, more commonly, from sunset to nightfall." ...in other words, "twilight" relates to the "light", not the "darkness" - and "light" is always preferred over "darkness" in poetic context. > "Exact connotation of twi- in this word is unclear, but it appears to refer to "half" light, rather than the fact that twilight occurs twice a day. Cf. also Skt. samdhya "twilight," lit. "a holding together, junction" " So if clarity is necessary, perhaps a neologism? "POLUSVETLO" ? Steevenusx 15:39, May 13, 2010 (UTC) Steeven, nothing is sad 'when you talk about languages. This word hurts, as if you were trying to say that Russian lacks something and it is not "enough" civilized language. Do you know that Eskimos language has about 80 words to express different kinds of snow? I believe some of them are casual, and some highly poetic. But this doesn't mean that we have to make 79 Interslavic neologisms for "snow" to accomodate Eskimos folklore! Moraczewski 17:20, May 13, 2010 (UTC) ':>/ --Steevenusx 18:20, May 13, 2010 (UTC) Russian uses two words in poetry that mean what you wrote: рассвет/закат = "the soft, diffused light from the sky when the sun is below the horizon". ''' So you can not say that Russian is more poor than English. BTW in ''sumrak, prefix su- is used, that means exactly the same as twi- in twilight. Etymologically it is the same as latin con-. Moraczewski 19:24, May 13, 2010 (UTC) Andrej, my apology. My use of the word "sad" above was not intended to infer that "Russian is more poor than English." Languages are very different one from the other - and, IMO - they contribute to a person's "perception of the world around them and inside themselves" - the so-called "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis"'' --Steevenusx 21:25, May 13, 2010 (UTC) Exactly. That's why I insist that you should not care about word-to-word translation English - IS, and not to create neologisms to every English word that is not defined in Slavic languages. Moraczewski 09:43, May 14, 2010 (UTC) Andrej....I disagree. I think that certain word concepts, if they do not exist but are important concepts, nelogisms should be created. You as a "user", of course, do not have to use them. That will be your choice. Steevenusx 16:55, May 14, 2010 (UTC) What certain concepts and why? Because you want to be closer to English? Why not to create 80 concepts of "snow"? Why should English always be basis for IS? Why are only English concepts important? Moraczewski 19:03, May 16, 2010 (UTC) '''"Snow" is "snow". I have no need or desire to define different types of "snow" - other than by the use of adjectives modifying the word "snow" - e.g. "a driving snow", "a wet snow", "a light snow", "a heavy snow", etc. For "twilight" versus "dusk" - the fact that I am aware of the difference in my mind - and that "difference" is important to my view of the world - means that I would like to communicate with someone else in French, Estonian or Russian about this difference. Here we have an opportunity in a constructed language to offer concepts that will expand a person's understanding and view of the world. I would always prefer to accept such an expansion, instead of limiting my understanding and view. I then have the OPTION to use that concept - or stay with the limited concept. It becomes my choice and does not prevent you from making your own choice. --Steevenusx 19:56, May 16, 2010 (UTC) So, IS is mostly based on your perception of world? I thought it was meant to be a Slavic interlanguage, and I thought the main idea was to be understandable for Slavs without much prior study. Moraczewski 20:44, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Andrej, "Slovianski's" main idea is to be understandable for Slavs without much prior study. "INTERSLAVIC" combines the vocabulary of Slovianski as well as "Slovioski" (the predecessor of Interslavic) together with Slavic neologistic word-forms, certain foreign words and certain Slovio words that, together, will offer more authentic and accurate communication among Slavic speakers and, initially, with English speakers (later, IMO, Spanish, French, Arabic and Chinese speakers too); in addition, Interslavic will ultimately contain a full legal and business word base which, most likely, will be comprised of Slavic-based neologisms where possible and/or more Indo-European based words. "Interslavic" is NOT based on my "perception of world." The vocabulary of "Interslavic" will be a living vocabulary that I expect will change from time to time to reflect the needs of its communicators. I have always listened carefully to your and everyone else's input, ideas and comments with respect to what word forms are ultimately used; however, I do not subscribe to the concept that certain nelogistic words should not be created because they do not exist in Slavic languages. "Twilight" and "Dusk" are good, simple examples where I believe Interslavic should have a neologistic word form to differentiate between the two. --Steevenusx 23:21, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Will this neologism be understandable for Slavs without study? Moraczewski 23:46, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you should be the "Oficialnom Odobreniem" vseh neologismov? (is that the correct word? - odobrenie ?) I always prefer that any word we use be representative of the Slavic languages. Sometimes that is not possible - example: '' "'enthusiast'" > Slovianski word is''''' "entuziast" '''which is NOT a Slavic word. Steevenusx 00:21, May 17, 2010 (UTC) No, I don't talk about odobrenie, I ask, will you care that neologisms will be understood well for Slavs and not conflict with natural languages? Moraczewski 04:13, May 17, 2010 (UTC)